Turkish conscientious objector Halil
Savda says that the authorities are
trying to keep public opinion in the dark about the existence of people
rejecting militarism, and obstruct any public discussion of the issue. The
European Union should be doing more about the issue, he says.

The Guardian, April 16th 2009

In 2002, at the age of 28, I thought about becoming an
objector for the first time. One of our objector friends, Mehmet Bal, was in
a military prison where he was tortured.

Of course I was aware that becoming a conscientious
objector meant that I could also be subjected to the same treatment. This
thought scared me a lot. I declared my conscientious objection at the
Besiktepe (in Tekirdag) military barracks in November 2004.

Through my rejection to military service, I said “no”
to the conflict that has been going on between the PKK [Kurdistan Workers'
Party] and the Turkish armed forces for the last 25 years. I sent the
message to the people of Turkey not to join the army or the guerrillas
through my conscientious objection.

While strengthening my search for freedom through my
conscientious objection, I gave the message that security of life can only
be realised through detaching violence from it. I believe that we need to go
beyond violence and that a culture of non-violence should flourish.

In Turkey, military service is a laboratory in which
masculinity is reproduced. I objected to military service, because I am also
against this laboratory-manufactured masculinity. Violence is widespread in
the region where I grew up, in Sırnak/Cizre in the south-east of Turkey.
Therefore, friends and family were suspicious of my thoughts on
non-violence, authority and patriarchy. They did not take my opinion
seriously.

They were saying that there was no way out of
conscription. Of course they were telling me this as they believed that I
would be imprisoned and would be subjected to torture and pressure which is
why they wanted me to perform military service.

Public opinion in Turkey is that “every male must
perform military service”. In addition, in Turkey, no one wants to oppose
the army, as it may have serious consequences. When people know my status
and that I oppose the army, naturally they are reserved and scared.

When I declared my conscientious objection, military
officers and soldiers were surprised. In the beginning, they did not know
how to react and deal with me. Therefore, they kept me in the military
barracks for eight days, wearing my regular clothing.

Afterwards, they recorded my statement. One of the
officers, who was listening to my statement, told me that “With your
statement you are committing a crime. There can be no state without an army.
Every Turk is obliged to perform military service.”

I was referred to the military prosecutor. Following
that, I was tried at the military court and arrested. I was arrested four
times and detained in a military prison. I was tried at the court three
times. In total I was imprisoned for 17 months. During my detention, I was
subjected to torture by beating. I was psychologically tortured by the
military officials and subjected to abuse.

For instance, at the Disciplinary Ward of the 8th
Mechanized Brigade, a military officer and guardians kicked my legs apart
and began hitting me. I was forced to sleep on the floor; they did not
provide me with a mattress or blankets.

On 25 April 2008, the Çorlu Military Hospital Medical
Council gave me a "not fit for military service report" for me based on
“anti-social behaviour and lack of masculinity and Turkishness”. Following
this report, I am exempted from the military at the moment.

The Turkish authorities try to ignore the issue of
conscientious objection in order to keep public opinion in the dark and
obstruct the recognition and public discussion of conscientious objection.
As a part of this strategy of ignoring and silencing the claims of
conscientious objectors, the authorities have recently been issuing these
“rotten reports” (not fit for military service reports) to imprisoned
conscientious objectors.

However, I am still under threat of Article 318 of the
Military Penal Code “alienating the Public from Military Service”. According
to this article, if I support objectors and the right to conscientious
objection or criticise the army in any way, I could be now imprisoned up to
four and a half years. For instance, I was sentenced to five months'
imprisonment, because in a press release in 2006, I declared my support for
two Israeli objectors, Amir Paster and Itzik Shabbat, who objected Israel’s
occupation of Lebanon.

I applied for a passport this year and received my
passport. Amnesty International sent me an invitation letter to attend the
seminar launching a book on conscientious objection last night. However, my
visa application was refused by the British Consulate in Istanbul. Their
refusal was based on the fact that I do not have a job, national insurance
number, bank account and any property. As a conscientious objector, I have
experienced “civil death.” Consequently, I cannot travel abroad at the
moment.

But I have never regretted my decision. I believe that
as individuals we have a responsibility towards humanity of which we are a
part. Our responsibility is to refuse war and militarism. I refused to be a
part of the militarist system which produces destruction, devastation, pain,
hunger, exploitation and slavery. No one can make me believe that dying,
killing and desperation are our destiny.

If there were no international institutions and
treaties, conscientious objectors could be subjected to even harsher
treatments. However, I believe that European Union does not pay sufficient
attention to the issue of conscientious objection during Turkey’s accession
process. In 2006, the European Court of Human Rights found a violation of
Article 3, which is on ill-treatment, in the case of Ulke v Turkey. But,
Ulke and his lawyers requested that the Court would consider Article 9,
freedom of thought, conscience and religion, as well. However, the Court did
not find it necessary to consider Article 9.

We believe that the right to conscientious objection
derives from the freedom of thought, conscience and religion. The Court’s
stance on this subject is unsatisfactory. I also believe that this approach
is not compatible with the foundation of the European Convention on Human
Rights.

If I could speak to the head of the Turkish army, I
would say: “You are damaging the society and the environment. You are
poisoning the society when you are brainwashing them on the sanctity of the
army. Only life is sacred. Believe in the sanctity of life and disarm
yourself. ”